SARGENTS COLORADO CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

GRSM Trial Team Holds Alameda County Asbestos Verdict to $900,000 Against $50 Million Demand

July 27, 2026 — Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani Partners John Katerndahl and Vincent Gunter recently obtained an outstanding trial result for a manufacturer of asbestos-containing electrical cable, holding a jury verdict to $900,000 against a $50 million demand following an eight-week trial in Alameda County Superior Court, which is among the most challenging asbestos venues in the country. The GRSM team also included Associate Brandon Sanchez, on-site trial Paralegal Laura Vitanova, and Paralegal Kerrie Lease. The plaintiffs, the surviving spouse and four children of a former painter who died of mesothelioma, alleged that the decedent was exposed to asbestos from the company’s electrical cable during construction of a California nuclear power facility. GRSM’s client was the sole remaining defendant at trial. The plaintiffs asked the jury for $50 million and called 15 witnesses across their case-in-chief and rebuttal. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani

---

Greg Katz Quoted in Insurance Journal Article About How Big Data & AI Are Driving Up Verdicts, Settlements

October 06, 2026 — Lewis Brisbois
National Managing Partner Greg Katz was recently quoted in an Insurance Journal article about how plaintiff's lawyers are harnessing big data and artificial intelligence to attempt to drive up jury awards and settlement demands. The article, titled "The Big Data/AI ‘Revolution’ Is Driving Up Verdicts, Settlements as Plaintiffs Buy In," points out that a growing number of personal injury and claims law firms, some of which are working with an influx of cash from investors and litigation funders, are using a multitude of high-tech tools to try to gain an advantage in litigation. They are using large online mock juries to test legal theories, big data to find sympathetic jurors and venues in which to try cases, and AI programs to analyze their own arguments and those of opponents. “They’re taking instincts and intuition out of the equation,” Mr. Katz told Insurance Journal. “They think they’ve come up with a different way to ring the bell and, in their words, add zeroes to awards.” Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

---

Construction Robotics Works Where Variation Ends

August 11, 2026 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
BuiltWorlds published its 2026 Robotics Top 50 this summer, and the list is genuinely wide. Fifty solutions across nine categories, from 3D printing and prefabricated component manufacturing to earthmoving, demolition, material transport, layout, installation, inspection, and drilling. The honorees come from sixteen countries. It looks like robotics has finally spread across the whole project lifecycle. However, having vendors in nine categories does not mean that contractors are robotizing their work en masse. Zacua Ventures, in its 2026 construction robotics report, estimates that on-site robotics accounted for less than 0.03% of global construction spending in 2025. Zacua says: “That is not a failed market. It is a market at the beginning of an adoption S-curve”, while warning that its estimates rest on private vendor data and may be high if vendors overstate how widely their machines are deployed. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

---

U.S. Supreme Court Decision May Negate State Law Requirement to File a Certificate of Merit with the Complaint in a Federal Action Against a Design Professional

April 27, 2026 — Christopher Olsen & Phillip Boldt - ConsensusDocs
To deter frivolous and unfounded claims against design professionals, states throughout the country have enacted statutes which generally require litigants to furnish a formal certification of merit (“COM”) from a qualified expert or face potential dismissal of their lawsuit. These COM statutes can impose a significant front-end burden on claimants who must pay an expert to review project records, interview the project team, and prepare a formal report before the lawsuit can be filed—often regardless of the amount in controversy. However, in light of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in a medical malpractice case, most, if not all of these statutes, may no longer be enforceable in federal court. This article examines the recent decision in Berk v. Choy, 146 S. Ct. 546 (2026), the decisions thus far which have applied Berk to invalidate COM statutes, and other categories of statutes applicable to the construction industry which may face a similar fate. The U.S. Supreme Court Decision (Berk v. Choy) In Berk, the plaintiff, Harold Berk, sued a doctor for medical malpractice under Delaware law in Delaware federal court. 146 S. Ct. at 551. Under Del. Code, Tit. 18, § 6853(a)(1), an affidavit of merit (like a COM) must accompany a complaint alleging medical malpractice. Id. Berk failed to include an affidavit of merit with his complaint. Id. at 552. Applying Delaware state law, the federal court dismissed Berk’s medical malpractice claim. Berk appealed to the Third Circuit, arguing that the affidavit of merit required by § 6853(a)(1) is unenforceable in federal court because it is more onerous than the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling, finding § 6853(a)(1) enforceable in federal court. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Olsen, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Phillip Boldt, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Olsen may be contacted at colsen@pecklaw.com Mr. Boldt may be contacted at pboldt@pecklaw.com Read the full story...

---

Court Denies Cross Summary Judgment Motions on Coverage for Odors in Newly Purchased Home

October 06, 2026 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court denied cross motions seeking to establish whether the policy covered damage due to smells in the insureds’ newly purchased home. Akina v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 2026 U.S Dist. LEXIS 162817 (W. D. Wash. July 22, 2026). Plaintiffs bought a home in May 2024 but never conducted an inspection before purchasing the property. Before moving in, plaintiffs secured a homeowners’ polilcy from State Farm. After moving in, plaintiffs began noticing smells in the house and started suffering from health symptoms. Plaintiffs learned from neighbors that the prior occupants had been witnessed in “drug activity.” Plaintiffs moved out of the house and had testing done. The home tested positive for methamphetamine pollution. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

California Poised for the Most Significant Residential Construction Defect Reforms in Decades

September 01, 2026 — Thomas D. Fama & Andrew J. Mallon - Wood Smith Henning Berman
The California Legislature is considering legislation that would dramatically alter the landscape of residential construction defect litigation. Assembly Bill 1903, currently pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee, proposes extensive amendments to California's Right to Repair Act (Civil Code sections 895-945.5) that would substantially strengthen procedural protections for builders while narrowing the scope of recoverable construction defect claims. If enacted, the legislation would affect virtually every stage of a construction defect dispute- from the initial notice of claim through litigation and settlement- and would introduce an entirely new certification process for newly constructed condominium projects. This article details some of the most significant proposed changes. Higher Burden for Construction Defect Plaintiffs Perhaps the most consequential change is the bill's modification of the proof required to establish liability. current law generally requires a claimant to demonstrate the residence fails to satisfy one of the statutory performance standards established under the Right to Repair Act. AB1903 would instead require claimants to establish three separate elements:

• A violation of an applicable statutory performance standard;
• The violation caused appreciable, present, non-speculative physical damage to another building component; and
• The violation resulted from the original construction.

Reprinted courtesy of Thomas D. Fama, Wood Smith Henning Berman and Andrew J. Mallon, Wood Smith Henning Berman Mr. Fama may be contacted at tfama@wshblaw.com Mr. Mallon may be contacted at amallon@wshblaw.com Read the full story...

---

Ninth Circuit Holds That Policies Covering Environmental Claims Do Not Have Aggregate Limits

May 12, 2026 — Lorelie S. Masters & Joseph T. Niczky - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
In the case of County of San Bernardino v. Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, the Ninth Circuit recently addressed the issue of whether general liability policies issued in the 1960s and 1970s included aggregate limits for claims arising under the premises-operations coverage in CGL policies. The difference between the policyholder’s interpretation of the policies’ limits clauses and the insurer’s interpretation was worth hundreds of millions of dollars in exposure for the insurer. The Court closely examined the policy language and extrinsic evidence from both the insurance industry’s drafting history and the parties before concluding that the policies were ambiguous. The Court construed that ambiguity in favor of the policyholder and ruled that aggregate limits did not apply to the claims at issue. The Court’s decision underscores the importance of carefully examining a policy’s limits, especially for older policies written before 1986 when the insurance industry revised the standard-form CGL policy to state the aggregate limits apply not only to products liability claims but to premises-operations claims as well. Decades of insurance industry drafting history confirms, as the policyholder’s submissions in this case indicate, that the industry well understood that operations claims like the environmental waste-disposal claims at issue here typically were not subject to aggregate limits. Reprinted courtesy of Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP and Joseph T. Niczky, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@hunton.com Mr. Niczky may be contacted at jniczky@hunton.com Read the full story...

---

Anomaly in Adding a Third-Party Claimant to a Liability Insurance Coverage Dispute

May 05, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In an insurance coverage lawsuit seeking declaratory relief, an insurer sued the third-party claimant. The insurer was seeking a declaration that there was no coverage, which naturally would impact the third-party claimant. The insured did not respond to the lawsuit and the insurer moved for a default judgment which was objected to by the third-party claimant. The trial court granted a final judgment in favor of the insurer, which prompted an appeal from the third-party claimant because the final judgment impacts its rights to coverage if it obtains a judgment against the insured. The appellate court reversed but please take a look at this Court’s discussion on the issue of an insurer adding a third-party claimant to a coverage lawsuit when then the third-party cannot pursue a direct claim against the insurer until it obtains a settlement or judgment against the insured. It presents an interesting argument and counter-point for a third-party claimant that is added to the coverage lawsuit which has implications if it obtains a judgment against the insured: This case involves an apparent anomaly in Florida law. It is well-established that third-party claimants injured by an insured’s negligence have a right as third-party beneficiaries to payment from the insured’s insurance proceeds. It is equally well-established that the third-party claimants’ rights in this regard do not accrue unless and until they obtain a verdict or settlement against the insured. A quick review of this law is helpful at this point. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---